Originally posted by vkey08And you won't have their names, they are minors and therefore their identities are protected if the parents
dont' want them out in public... Another little law that everyone thinks they should just ignore for the sake of ATS..

I notice you didn't comment on the lack of any interviews with these children. Is that standard as well? To not question material witnesses to a
capital crime?

Even young children who have been molested get interviewed...but not one of these kids will be? Seems odd for an ongoing investigation where so much
is, apparently, up in the air.

Hello? McFly? Knock knock knock. Anybody home?

Police don't conduct their investigations based on YOUR lack of understanding. The police have all the evidence. You have what the media fed us in
their rush to provide any details without confirming them first.

There was a video system at the school. There were other eye-witnesses. You have no idea who the police interviewed, or what's on the video.

Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it's odd or that there's a conspiracy. Asking these ooh... Probing questions isn't
making anybody look like a genius. Quite the opposite.

Originally posted by vkey08And you won't have their names, they are minors and therefore their identities are protected if the parents
dont' want them out in public... Another little law that everyone thinks they should just ignore for the sake of ATS..

I notice you didn't comment on the lack of any interviews with these children. Is that standard as well? To not question material witnesses to a
capital crime?

Even young children who have been molested get interviewed...but not one of these kids will be? Seems odd for an ongoing investigation where so much
is, apparently, up in the air.

Hello? McFly? Knock knock knock. Anybody home?

Police don't conduct their investigations based on YOUR lack of understanding. The police have all the evidence. You have what the media fed us in
their rush to provide any details without confirming them first.

There was a video system at the school. There were other eye-witnesses. You have no idea who the police interviewed, or what's on the video.

Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it's odd or that there's a conspiracy. Asking these ooh... Probing questions isn't
making anybody look like a genius. Quite the opposite.

Seriously...? Legitimate discussion of available evidence will be quashed but condescension, sarcasm and back-biting like this goes on unabated?

The authorities have learned generally from the children who ran away that something may have happened to Lanza's rifle that caused him to stop
firing.

Investigators have decided not to formally interview the children, based on advice from Yale child psychologists.

Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post
something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...

Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post
something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...

...and you want to know why they didnt interview the kids?

If you don't understand the difference between an informal interview...and an official one in the 2nd largest mass shooting in American history I'm
not about to try and explain it to you.

Originally posted by vkey08And you won't have their names, they are minors and therefore their identities are protected if the parents
dont' want them out in public... Another little law that everyone thinks they should just ignore for the sake of ATS..

I notice you didn't comment on the lack of any interviews with these children. Is that standard as well? To not question material witnesses to a
capital crime?

Even young children who have been molested get interviewed...but not one of these kids will be? Seems odd for an ongoing investigation where so much
is, apparently, up in the air.

You also asked for their names, I don't know much about the decision not to interview them, so I withheld comment. I only address that which I knew
as concrete fact, that you will NOT get their names unless the parents say it's ok, which I am guessing they won't ever... I know I wouldn't, not
after seeing the stuff posted here, and how some members are still clinging to the notion that this was all holograms and cgi.. (yes in another thread
someone actually said that)

The children escaped from the first-grade classroom of teacher Victoria Soto,

The six children who escaped Lanza's rampage ran to a home a short distance from the school.

The arriving officers encountered a shocking scene in Soto's classroom. Lanza had shot her, as well as special education teacher Anne Marie Murphy
and six of Soto's 6- and 7-year old students. Seven of Soto's students were found huddled and unharmed in a classroom closet,

Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post
something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...

...and you want to know why they didnt interview the kids?

If you don't understand the difference between an informal interview...and an official one in the 2nd largest mass shooting in American history I'm
not about to try and explain it to you.

Did you miss the part where is said "proves they have INFORMALLY interviewed the kids?" I do know there is a difference, obviously. Do you understand
that they consulted a leading child psychologist who suggested that they stick with only the INFORMAL interviews already done and they made their
decision based on that?

They are keeping the well being of the surviving children as their top priority, as they well should.

Basically, you are saying "I have my answer, but I dont like that answer, so I am going to demand another one"

Originally posted by vkey08from your comment, bold by me, certainly looks like you want to know their names...

I made a statement...I did not ask a question. Your implication was that I was salivating for info. I'm not going to bite. I don't need to. These
issues, should you really wish to address them, will slow you up far quicker than I could.

Originally posted by swansong19
If anyone would like to answer a question for me I'd appreciate it.

From the same story...

The children escaped from the first-grade classroom of teacher Victoria Soto,

The six children who escaped Lanza's rampage ran to a home a short distance from the school.

The arriving officers encountered a shocking scene in Soto's classroom. Lanza had shot her, as well as special education teacher Anne Marie Murphy
and six of Soto's 6- and 7-year old students. Seven of Soto's students were found huddled and unharmed in a classroom closet,

Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post
something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...

...and you want to know why they didnt interview the kids?

Noooo....

"Informally interviewed"? It doesn't say that ANYWHERE. Actually...if you read it...it doesn't even say if they spoke to the kids. They say they
"learned, generally from the kids." You may infer from that, that they spoke to the kids...but it is just as possible that they got the information
from Rosen...or a parent.

The authorities have learned generally, from the children who ran away

Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post
something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...

...and you want to know why they didnt interview the kids?

Noooo....

"Informally interviewed"? It doesn't say that ANYWHERE. Actually...if you read it...it doesn't even say if they spoke to the kids. They say they
"learned, generally from the kids." You may infer from that, that they spoke to the kids...but it is just as possible that they got the information
from Rosen...or a parent.

The authorities have learned generally, from the children who ran away

For someone who wants facts you're pretty quick to make them up.

So, by your very own quote that you posted it says that they got information from the kids that there may have been an issue with the gun....but you
are claiming that doesnt mean that they spoke to the kids? How does "learned, generally from the kids" not equal they spoke to the kids? If they
learned it from rosen, why would they have said they learned it from the kids?

If this semantics game is the best you have got.....well....im not really sure what to tell you.

Ok, wait....so you post a quote that says they have decided not to interview the kids based on advice from a Yale child psychologist. You also post
something that PROVES they have informally interviewed the kids...

...and you want to know why they didnt interview the kids?

Noooo....

"Informally interviewed"? It doesn't say that ANYWHERE. Actually...if you read it...it doesn't even say if they spoke to the kids. They say they
"learned, generally from the kids." You may infer from that, that they spoke to the kids...but it is just as possible that they got the information
from Rosen...or a parent.

The authorities have learned generally, from the children who ran away

For someone who wants facts you're pretty quick to make them up.

So, by your very own quote that you posted it says that they got information from the kids that there may have been an issue with the gun....but you
are claiming that doesnt mean that they spoke to the kids? How does "learned, generally from the kids" not equal they spoke to the kids? If they
learned it from rosen, why would they have said they learned it from the kids?

If this semantics game is the best you have got.....well....im not really sure what to tell you.

You said it PROVES they were informally interviewed. It proves no such thing.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.